STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305

DEPARTMENT OF BIOCHEMISTRY PAUL BERG
Willson Professor of Biochemistry

January 5, 1979

Senator Harrison Schmitt
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Schmitt,

Please forgive me for the delay in answering your letter
of November 8 asking my views on Senator Stevenson's intention
to introduce legislation next year to regulate recombinant DNA
research. I left for a nearly month-long trip to Japan shortly
after your letter arrived and the accumulated chores and ob-~
ligations that greeted my return kept me from responding sooner.

Lest there be any doubt about my views let me be quite
direct: I am unalterably and unequivocally opposed to
legislation, whether federal, state or local, that regulates
research using recombinant DNA techniques. Such drastic and
far-reaching action (or overreaction) is, in my view, unnecessary
and, therefore, unwarranted. But, more importantly, I am con-
cerned that such legislation and the inevitable bureaucracy it
would engender, could cripple important biologic and medical
research that have become reliant upon the recombinant DNA
break-through. In attempting to guard against what were never
more than conjectural and are now highly improbable and un-
realistic fears, such legislation would require costly ex-~
penditures and procedures in a vain attempt to obtain the
impossible: assurances of zero risk. For me and many others
that price is too great, the cost-benefit ratio unacceptably
high. As I see it the Nation would gain little from such
legislation but the losses would be excessive. Instead of
seeking newways of regulating this field of science, I believe
we should be exploiting, as vigorously as we can, the tremendous
opportunities afforded by the recombinant DNA methodology. In
doing so we should also be alert and ready to respond to any
surprises that signal danger. But certainly we should not be
erecting political and administrative barriers or bureaucracies
that serve no useful purpose. Unfortunately, Secretary Califano
is determined to do otherwise (See Nature's comments - enclosure
l and the Federal Register December 22, 1978).
January 5, 1979
Page 2

As you well know creativity, intuition, knowledge and per-
severing effort are the hallmarks of first-rate science; the
administrative edifice that has already been constructed to
govern recombinant DNA research frustrates the first two and
impedes the last. Having a cumbersome, inefficient and un-
responsive bureaucracy, centered in Washington-Bethesda,
controlling the design and performance of experiments is in-
compatible with effective research.

Interminable meetings of local committees that have too
little understanding of the experimental details, opportunities
or putative risks they must judge, consume scandalous amounts of
time. Before experiments can be initiated to determine the
significance or usefulness of promising leads, breakthroughs
or hypotheses there are frequently months of review, discussion
and paper pushing. And, if in the progress of the research
some alteration in the protocol becomes necessary or advisable,
further time-consuming consultations and deliberations are
required. Is it any surprise that an increasing number of leading
American scientists, have had enough of burdensome restrictions, and
stultifying administrative demands; anticipating still worse
times,some are turning to foreign laboratories for relief
(see news clipping, enclosure 2). However one feels about the
propriety of their decisions and actions, we can not escape
the signal and its implications: Important science, research
that society wants done and is paying for, will leave the
United States to be done in a more hospitable setting. But what
are the prospects for those scientists who do not have this
option? Very likely, morale and enthusiasm will wane, the
overall research effort will be eroded and the momentum generated
by the recombinant DNA breakthrough could be dissipated. This
may please the "less-knowledge is better" and environmentalist
forces but for most it is a calamity we can ill afford.

The recombinant DNA controversy has been and continues to
puzzle me. Those of us who signed the 1974 "Moratorium" letter
did so not because we were convinced of imminent danger or
disaster (as it has often been misrepresented), but because we
believed the issue needed to be raised, examined carefully and
critically before, not after, proceeding full-speed ahead. But
what began and should have remained principally a scientific
issue, was captured and exploited by sensationalist journalists
(see enclosure 1 for a recent example), by environmentalist
and single-issue public interest groups who fail to consider
the wider consequences of their own narrow-mindedness and by
demagogic scientists and politicians who prefer to manipulate
rather than understand the issues. For me and many of my
colleagues this exercise in science and public policy has
become nightmarish and disastrous.
January 5, 1979
Page 3

Rather than legislative or administrative actions to curb
recombinant DNA research we need to look seriously at whether
the unlikely risks that remain, warrant huge expenditures of
money to support the present machinery that regulates recombinant
DNA research. My own early concerns that some recombinant DNA
experiments might carry risks have long been dissipated. The
data, discussions and experience of the last four years have
convinced me that our earlier concerns are no longer warranted.
I now believe that Society has more to fear from the intrusions
of government in the conduct of scientific research than from
recombinant DNA research itself. Initially, I was full of
hope, even optimistic, that we could act wisely and decisively
to develop procedures that would promote research using this
promising new tool and minimize or eliminate whatever risks
that pertained. But from any vantage point, I see only a victory
for the politicians of science rather than scientists. I and
most of my colleagues are growing increasingly apprehensive
of the outcome of such victories. To counter individuals and
organizations promoting "Science for the People" we need
"People for Science".

I greatly appreciate your invitation to state my views on
this matter. I am sorry I could not do it sooner. I also
wanted, particularly, to commend you on your science letter
opposing oppressive legislation to control scientific research;
it is reassuring to know that there are some in our government
‘councils who share, through experience and understanding, our
love for science. I often recall your statement that if you
were reentering science today, biology would be your first
choice. I'd be happy to fill you in and keep you abreast of
developments in the recombinant DNA field should you decide
its really not too late. Perhaps you'd be interested in some
of the scientific happenings in our lab; A recent New York
Times article summarizes some current work that will appear
in Nature during mid January.

Respectfully,
— Vs
Paul Berg

PB:vs

Enclosures